Guess what? I was never a pedophile!

And no. I am not backstabbing the male sexualist crowd, or even the anti feminist crowd.

I am just calling a spade a spade. Teenagers are not children. Only prepubescents are children. Therefore I am not a pedophile and never was. Probably you aren’t one either. And if you are, just refrain from having sex with prepubescents. I know that is physically possible. We are rational humans.

But back on topic. I am used to talk to psychology professionals, and recently I was talking with one on the topic of pedophilia.

This expert, which i will name Professor Crimson for privacy reasons, discusses some current social topics with me regularly. When I mentioned the matter about pedophilia Professor Crimson stated the term is used irresponsibly since pedophilic tendencies require a primary sexual attraction to prepubescents. Everything else is, as often agreed by many specialists, a variation of normal.

So no. Just because she is under 18 doesn’t mean you are a pedophile. If she is not prepubescent you are not a pedophile. So let us end the semantic abuse and make it clear. Pedophilia refers only to prepubescents.

I must repeat. If you are indeed a pedophile just refrain from sexual activity with prepubescents and that’s it. I do not approve persecution over thought crime. Your thought and fetish shouldn’t be criminalized, but having sex with prepubescents is not precisely a healthy thing to do from a reproductive standpoint.

Advertisements

Feminism is actually in favor of rape.

Sounds weird, right? Well. But it is the truth. Feminism wants more women to get raped.

They want that so much they actively distort and expand the definition of rape. Rape used to be forceful penetration in the case of a woman. Now we got things such as stare rape (Being seen by an ugly man), fart rape (Because if your husband farts he raped you), and birth rape (If your child is a boy, since he was inside your vagina it was rape).

Yes. All of these were feminist positions that extend the definition and concept of rape. In fact one of the most influential modern femihags, Andrea Dworkin (And yes, she was ugly), declared all heterosexual intercourse as rape.

But well, we know they want to extend the definition of rape, but why? Well. Because they need to extend their existence. Feminism justifies itself by claiming there are issues that affect women negatively which need to be solved. But most of the time either they fail to solve the issue, or it was already being handled by someone else.

For example, under the so called “patriarchy” rape was held as something unacceptable. Turns out men, even when in charge, tend to like women enough to want to protect them. Who would have imagined both gametes are instinctually driven to preserve each other?

Well. So rape was still a crime but was still happening, because as we all know not everyone is a law abiding citizen. But then there were more laws, harsher punishments, and a lot more police officers handling the issue. And no one really complained. Most people are not in favor of preventing what used to be defined as rape before feminism.

And so, even though rape was still an issue, it was an issue that had been handled long before feminism. Even in societies where women were seen as less worthy than men rape was often seen as wrong. And there is an instinctive reason for that, no man wants to raise they child of another man.

But so feminism had nothing to do with rape, they fixed nothing, and they knew it. Besides most things that had a negative effect on women (Except for those their corporate overlords wanted) were gone. In fact one could say women were far too sheltered from hardship. So feminism lost its meaning, again. And thus they needed a new thing to fight against.

Of course instead of seeking more freedom for women (Only Camille Paglia and a few other “feminists” want that, and they are seen as a heretics by other feminists), and therefore fighting their rich masters and investors, they wanted to take freedom away from men.

And so, without a true purpose, since they already took so many freedoms from men, they had to create something that could keep them alive. They extended rape because it was just about semantics, so they did with pedophilia.

And new freedoms to take away from men were available to their claws. With pedophilia extending past puberty they took full control over the sex market (They even want to extend pedophilia to full grown adults with large age gaps, such as a man in his 40s and a woman in her 20s dating), and by extending rape they extended their victim points and the demonization of men.

As such they want more women to get raped, in the most complex, non penetrative ways possible. Even without physical touch it is now possible to rape a woman thanks to feminism. No wonder why many male sexualists came up with the idea of “legalizing rape” since everything a man does is rape now.

So no. They do not want to decriminalize the forced penetration of women. They just want to be able to look at a woman on the street and not being charged with rape. Is that unreasonable?

As I said before, I do have a positive thing to say. Camille Paglia is one of the few feminists whose words are worthwhile. Hearing her words is different to hearing other feminists. She speaks of wanting women to be more free, and generally she is not against men gaining that freedom too. In fact she has often said teenaged women should be free to be with older men. There might be strong disagreements between her and I, but she is one of the only feminists I can feel an ounce of respect for. Naturally she is considered an enemy by other feminists.